Frank's cousin Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 I wonder if FC would suggest other nations should open "dialogue" if it was the Nasty UK going around and claiming land..? well I suggest other nations did exactly that after we had claimed their lands, it took longer for them to gain tehir independence, but most now have - the only difference is that The Falklands were not inhabited when we 'claimed them' - had they been, as mentioned to the Tory Boy, would you be an advocate for self determination of the original indigenous population? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 It is if they decide to go down a military route again... unlikely yes' date=' but it does then become our problem.[/quote'] they simply will not..... if they do, then yes it is our problem..short of saying..here you go, screw the wishes of the people that live their, you may no have the islands...which aint going to happen believe me, they simply will not dare another pop with their armed forces Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 I suspect that if the UK government were to enterinto dialogue with the Argentines, then the Islanders would feel massively betrayed. and what the dialogue between the UK and Argentines consist of. Argentina: Give us the Islands UK: No Argentina: Why not? Uk: Because the islanders don't want it. Argentina: Oh...Give us the islands. etc I appreciate that wa stongue in cheek, but I suspect you know that such dimplomatic dialogue is a little more complex - would explore the history, the original settlement, strategic importance, resources and rights of self determination... If free of nationlistic rhetoric and jingoism, debate can move things forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 What are you implying? Not all of us have the same racist bigoted attitiude as you Duney boy. You forget your history as well, teh only reason they are inhabited by 'anglo saxons (half Germans ;-) is that their forefathers 'claimed' that territory. Had it been inhabited by a local indigenous population (oh as Gibraltar is/was) would you be defending their right to self determination and independence even if they were in the minority now? (Cue very short ignorant trolling response full of bigotted, bombastic jingoistic bull sh it that you dont really beieve in but say because you think it sound good....) Incoherent waffle. Try again Frank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 well I suggest other nations did exactly that after we had claimed their lands' date=' it took longer for them to gain tehir independence, but most now have - the only difference is that The Falklands were not inhabited when we 'claimed them' - had they been, as mentioned to the Tory Boy, would you be an advocate for self determination of the original indigenous population?[/quote'] but they were not inhabited so can't see your reasoning.....if the population were latin american and wanted to become part of Argentina, I would have no problem....but the inhabitants are not and they very strongly do not want to be...they want to remain as they are in a free and democratic world we live in.. can't believe you are accommodating imperialistic views of another nation yet frown upon our own past Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 ... Oh in case its not clear ... I am not suggesting dialogue to 'simply hand them over' I ad talking about dialogue that finally leads to an end of any claims - a convincing and diplomatic rationale that removes and 'need' for such a claim... These things are steeped in political rhetoric - if not resloved they keep rearing its ugly head as another new PM uses it to stir up nationalism and avoid addressing local problems. Its about removing the issue form the list of political opportunim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 can't believe you are accommodating imperialistic views of another nation yet frown upon our own past Welcome to the confused and contradicting world of the Left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 Incoherent waffle. Try again Frank. Really surprized you are so happy to give the impression you are such a thick **** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 ... Oh in case its not clear ... I am not suggesting dialogue to 'simply hand them over' I ad talking about dialogue that finally leads to an end of any claims - a convincing and diplomatic rationale that removes and 'need' for such a claim... These things are steeped in political rhetoric - if not resloved they keep rearing its ugly head as another new PM uses it to stir up nationalism and avoid addressing local problems. Its about removing the issue form the list of political opportunim. but it does not...been done and done again since 1833.....even took us to sail down there and kill 600+ which led to a dictatorship being overthrown..yet, here we are..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 but they were not inhabited so can't see your reasoning.....if the population were latin american and wanted to become part of Argentina, I would have no problem....but the inhabitants are not and they very strongly do not want to be...they want to remain as they are in a free and democratic world we live in.. can't believe you are accommodating imperialistic views of another nation yet frown upon our own past Not quite sure where you think I have accomodated imperialistic views of Argentina - where have I said they are right in any of this? I am and its pretty clear talking about the methods used to address the issue... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 Really surprized you are so happy to give the impression you are such a thick **** Calm down Frank. This is doing nothing for your image as one of the most interesting contributors to the SWF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 but it does not...been done and done again since 1833.....even took us to sail down there and kill 600+ which led to a dictatorship being overthrown..yet, here we are..... That's a little disenguous - I suspect that dplomatic dialogue was not quite as diplomatic in 1833 - given that there was indeed a need to sail down there and kill 600+ suggest one of two things: you say that the dialogue did not work, I say that dialogue was not fully explored... we have to agree to differ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 Calm down Frank. This is doing nothing for your image as one of the most interesting contributors to the SWF. Oh so glad you think, will be able to sleep better at night now knowing you highly you regard me. Still think your contributions are utter shiedt though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 That's a little disenguous - I suspect that dplomatic dialogue was not quite as diplomatic in 1833 - given that there was indeed a need to sail down there and kill 600+ suggest one of two things: you say that the dialogue did not work' date=' I say that dialogue was not fully explored... we have to agree to differ[/quote'] it has been done..done again and continues today (you won't read about it in the sun).yet here we are. short of saying "here you go, do what you like with the islands" they will continue (for now) to stir up anti british feelings in her country we sailed down there as they had a dictatorship on the brink and convinced his country they were going to "liberate" the islands from the british..when that was not the case...ffs, many of the conscripts did not even think they were going to war... I think the UK has been pretty spot on with this...no fuss made, no addresses to the masses...simple, articulate points made that are fully upheld by international law...no whipping up anti argy feelings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 I appreciate that wa stongue in cheek' date=' but I suspect you know that such dimplomatic dialogue is a little more complex - would explore the history, the original settlement, strategic importance, resources and rights of self determination... If free of nationlistic rhetoric and jingoism, debate can move things forward.[/quote'] Just had a look at the history, and the islands were controlled as follows France 1765 - 1766 (agreed to leave) UK 1766 - 1776 (left plaque claiming sovereignty Spain from Buenos Ares 1770 -1811 (left plaque) Argentina 1820 - 1832 UK 1833 - Now So who has a greater claim based upon the above is anyones guess. Resources will obviously matter although I suspect this is a side issue. The strategic importance issue, I think is obsolete these days. Back in the day of sail, having to pass through the straits of magellan, they would have been vitally important. Which leaves the self determination issue, that I think we are all agreed would lead to the Islanders choosing to remain British. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 Just had a look at the history, and the islands were controlled as follows France 1765 - 1766 (agreed to leave) UK 1766 - 1776 (left plaque claiming sovereignty Spain from Buenos Ares 1770 -1811 (left plaque) Argentina 1820 - 1832 UK 1833 - Now So who has a greater claim based upon the above is anyones guess. Resources will obviously matter although I suspect this is a side issue. The strategic importance issue, I think is obsolete these days. Back in the day of sail, having to pass through the straits of magellan, they would have been vitally important. Which leaves the self determination issue, that I think we are all agreed would lead to the Islanders choosing to remain British. :-) Totally agree the issue now should be about the right to self determine - but the above does show how easy it is to forget history and just assume its a simple case of 'we got their first' etc. Re DellDays point about teh way we are handling it... I agree the way most media channels have handled the 30th anniverary have been measured and fair, and to some extent you are right about the sovereignty issue, but can you see that staying the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 Just had a look at the history, and the islands were controlled as follows France 1765 - 1766 (agreed to leave) UK 1766 - 1776 (left plaque claiming sovereignty Spain from Buenos Ares 1770 -1811 (left plaque) Argentina 1820 - 1832 UK 1833 - Now So who has a greater claim based upon the above is anyones guess. Resources will obviously matter although I suspect this is a side issue. The strategic importance issue, I think is obsolete these days. Back in the day of sail, having to pass through the straits of magellan, they would have been vitally important. Which leaves the self determination issue, that I think we are all agreed would lead to the Islanders choosing to remain British. Not sure where you're getting that from but it's contradictory to what I have read and always understood to be correct. As I understand it, there was always some argument between Britain and Spain over control of them following the departure of the French, but at no point has Argentina, as a sovereign nation independent from Spain, ever actually been granted control of the Islands - they just assumed it was part of the package when they declared independence from Spain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 ... Oh in case its not clear ... I am not suggesting dialogue to 'simply hand them over' I ad talking about dialogue that finally leads to an end of any claims - a convincing and diplomatic rationale that removes and 'need' for such a claim... These things are steeped in political rhetoric - if not resloved they keep rearing its ugly head as another new PM uses it to stir up nationalism and avoid addressing local problems. Its about removing the issue form the list of political opportunim. Argentina has made it pretty clear that they believe the Falklands should be theirs - indeed it is part of their constitution - and they are not prepared to budge on that. The UK Govt is not prepared to budge on the rights of self-determination for Falkland Islanders. Just what is there to discuss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 (edited) Argentina has made it pretty clear that they believe the Falklands should be theirs - indeed it is part of their constitution - and they are not prepared to budge on that. The UK Govt is not prepared to budge on the rights of self-determination for Falkland Islanders. Just what is there to discuss? Granted it appears simple - but I think what plays a huge part in this is the sovereignty question - and how that plays to national pride etc. Argentina has for sometime claimed the islands as part of their territory, and giving up 'territory' to another nation does not sit easy with any country - so an impasse? Well if the UK Govt is ONLY concerned with the rights of self determination of the islanders then the first step must surely be to work with the Argentinians to get them to acknowledge that self determination is the right thing - remove the issue of UK V Argentina on sovereignty and create room for a 'back down'. Not Argnetina forfeiting a right to territory, but Argentina recognising this right of the islanders - OK very simplistic but in such discussions, the Argentinians could be granted the opportunity to present their case and benefits to the falkland islanders so that any 'vote' is made with that in mind etc... Not saying it would work and as Dell days has mentioned we dont know what happens behind the closed doors/back channels, but if the ned game is self determination and an end to any further claims, then what is to be lost by this? If on the other hand there is more to it than that, mineral rights, etc then at least be honest about it. How would the islanders feel if their self determination rights were only supported by UK Govt as a convenient moral justification for a more commercial reason? Not saying that is the case, but whenever we hear Governments make grandiose statements about 'rights' etc, how often are there really underlying reasons? Afterall. Iraq, Libya etc had more to do with the oil than the rights of ordinary citizens to self govern? Edited 4 April, 2012 by Frank's cousin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 Well the Falklands Islands people are self-governing and have an elected parliament, so if they want to hear representations from Argentina or want to vote, then they can do so. At the moment they don't want to so I don't think the UK Government should be pushing for something to happen just so that Argentina can recover some wounded pride. It is an issue entirely stoked up by the Argentinian Government pursuing populism and I couldn't care less about helping them save face now that they've backed themselves into a dead end. If they had sense they would have embarked on a long and consistent charm offensive to encourage the Islanders to want to become part of Argentina, that they haven't is very telling..... Re: mineral rights - the UK Government has placed no claim on revenues from Falklands oil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 Well the Falklands Islands people are self-governing and have an elected parliament, so if they want to hear representations from Argentina or want to vote, then they can do so. At the moment they don't want to so I don't think the UK Government should be pushing for something to happen just so that Argentina can recover some wounded pride. It is an issue entirely stoked up by the Argentinian Government pursuing populism and I couldn't care less about helping them save face now that they've backed themselves into a dead end. If they had sense they would have embarked on a long and consistent charm offensive to encourage the Islanders to want to become part of Argentina, that they haven't is very telling..... Re: mineral rights - the UK Government has placed no claim on revenues from Falklands oil True but in that case as a self governing entity, surely the onus would be on the United Nations to issue a resolution should miltary action need to be taken following an illegal act of any kind by Argentina? Ok so we have not staked any claim to mineral rights, but would we be slow in doing so if the quantities available were worth the cost of extraction long term? I just think there is always more to this than 'rights of people' - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 True but in that case as a self governing entity' date=' [b']surely the onus would be on the United Nations[/b] to issue a resolution should miltary action need to be taken following an illegal act of any kind by Argentina? Ok so we have not staked any claim to mineral rights, but would we be slow in doing so if the quantities available were worth the cost of extraction long term? I just think there is always more to this than 'rights of people' - um, international law perhaps..? we are a permanent member of the UN SC and it involves us...so we are dealing with it..? any form of military action to take the falklands by the Argies would be a very hostile and and illegal you are saying we should be doing something when nothing needs doing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 Not sure where you're getting that from but it's contradictory to what I have read and always understood to be correct. As I understand it, there was always some argument between Britain and Spain over control of them following the departure of the French, but at no point has Argentina, as a sovereign nation independent from Spain, ever actually been granted control of the Islands - they just assumed it was part of the package when they declared independence from Spain. Wiki of course. Actually it was the united provinces of river plate rather than modern Argentina, however one was the ore cursor to the other Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 Argentina has made it pretty clear that they believe the Falklands should be theirs - indeed it is part of their constitution - and they are not prepared to budge on that. The UK Govt is not prepared to budge on the rights of self-determination for Falkland Islanders. Just what is there to discuss? This. A perfect summary. Any further discussion is a waste of server space. Argentina added their claim to the Falklands to their constitution not so long ago, AND tore up all the previously-signed co-operation agreements with the UK. They have suddenly re-ignited this, for questionable reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsland Codger Posted 4 April, 2012 Share Posted 4 April, 2012 In the village, there is a rather cold and not very appealing girl. She is in love with a powerful, wealthy but older man who lives a long way away and is vaguely aware of her but has no special feelings towards her. Her neighbour thinks she should be going out with him and so one day he kicks in the door of her house, says the house now belongs to him (because a long time ago, possibly, someone vaguely related to him stayed there overnight) and tells both the girl and the older guy to like it or lump it. The older guy comes calling and gives his rival a bloody nose and a black eye and sends him home with his tail between his legs. He ensures the girl's home is safe and gives the girl many gifts. What should the rival do? Huff and puff, say it's unfair, that the girl is truly his and threaten and cry and generally behave like a class 1 twit? Or should he send the girl a handwritten message on scented notepaper saying he's sorry, give her flowers and chocolates and try very hard to be nice to her? Put another way ... Just what the heck does the Argentine diplomatic service think it's doing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 5 April, 2012 Share Posted 5 April, 2012 In the village, there is a rather cold and not very appealing girl. She is in love with a powerful, wealthy but older man who lives a long way away and is vaguely aware of her but has no special feelings towards her. Her neighbour thinks she should be going out with him and so one day he kicks in the door of her house, says the house now belongs to him (because a long time ago, possibly, someone vaguely related to him stayed there overnight) and tells both the girl and the older guy to like it or lump it. The older guy comes calling and gives his rival a bloody nose and a black eye and sends him home with his tail between his legs. He ensures the girl's home is safe and gives the girl many gifts. What should the rival do? Huff and puff, say it's unfair, that the girl is truly his and threaten and cry and generally behave like a class 1 twit? Or should he send the girl a handwritten message on scented notepaper saying he's sorry, give her flowers and chocolates and try very hard to be nice to her? Put another way ... Just what the heck does the Argentine diplomatic service think it's doing? Indeed. I understand sentiment on the islands ranges between utter defiance, keep calm &carry on, let the f**kers try it again, and slight unease at the escalation in rhetoric. But even then, no-one is advocating negotiation. Current Argentine diplomacy has really screwed the pooch; put back relations with the islanders by about 25 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted 5 April, 2012 Share Posted 5 April, 2012 (edited) Just had a look at the history, and the islands were controlled as follows France 1765 - 1766 (agreed to leave) UK 1766 - 1776 (left plaque claiming sovereignty Spain from Buenos Ares 1770 -1811 (left plaque) Argentina 1820 - 1832 UK 1833 - Now Actually, that covers East Falkland. West Falkland - the larger but less inhabited island - has only ever been occupied by the British (except for a couple of months in 1982, of course). Edited 5 April, 2012 by Pugwash 1982 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 5 April, 2012 Share Posted 5 April, 2012 Actually, that covers East Falkland. West Falkland - the larger but less inhabited island - has only ever been occupied by the British (except for a couple of months in 1982, of course). So they have only got half the claim they thought they had Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 17 April, 2012 Share Posted 17 April, 2012 Who'd have thought it, but the Argentinian witch has only gone and isolated herself from Spain - a country with a similar sovereignty claim. A very welcome development. http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=24539 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 17 April, 2012 Share Posted 17 April, 2012 (edited) The witch is also gonna feel the wrath of the EU and the US over this. I hope she holds firms because it strengthens our position r.e the Falklands. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/9208174/Argentina-to-seize-more-Repsol-assets-than-expected.html Edited 17 April, 2012 by dune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 17 April, 2012 Share Posted 17 April, 2012 and people sympathise with her...she is dangerous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 17 April, 2012 Share Posted 17 April, 2012 Well, I find this all ver confusing, why on earth would Argentina think we have any influence with the affairs of a Sovereign Nation? Do they want to keep the beach resorts for themselves? Hell of a long flight and aren't they flooding? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9207183/Barack-Obama-makes-Falklands-gaffe-by-calling-Malvinas-the-Maldives.html President Obama erred during a speech at the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia, when attempting to call the disputed archipelago by its Spanish name. Instead of saying Malvinas, however, Mr Obama referred to the islands as the Maldives, a group of 26 atolls off that lie off the South coast of India. Nice one Obama, you just keep showing the world how great the Yanks have always been at Geography Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 17 April, 2012 Share Posted 17 April, 2012 There is growing concern in the Americas about her general behaviour, apparently. The Falklands is only one small part (and a pretty unimportant part to the other American nations) of the story. She is getting too left-wing and too chummy with Chavez, and this sounds this Spanish oil company issue sounds like something Chavez has prompted her to do. She is also getting too chummy with Iran. Brazil and Uruguay are getting fed up with her threatening the Falklands and the British too, since they enjoy good relations with the UK and want to keep it that way. Of course, tosspot countries like Peru, Venezuela and Bolivia still support her. Apparently she stomped out of the Cartagena conference early, because support of Argentinas position on the Falklands was not included in the protocol. She did very well before Xmas to get the Mercosur countries on here side, but it is falling apart now; apparently the US and Canada vetoed its inclusion in the protocol. The Carribean support of Argentinas position is paper-thin since Prince Harry's visit to Jamaica. The US position on the Falklands for me is clear. They dont want to be involved, they dont want to offend either side. It seems Obama (tries to) call them the Malvinas in American nation discussions, and the Falklands with us. I think eventually their diplomacy would be driven by what is right and what is wrong: e.g. if Argentina invaded again, the US would support the UK position under the auspice of the rights of the Falkland Islanders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 17 April, 2012 Share Posted 17 April, 2012 she wants the south atlantic nuclear free (aimed at us) does not sit well with brazil what so ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 17 April, 2012 Share Posted 17 April, 2012 she wants the south atlantic nuclear free (aimed at us) does not sit well with brazil what so ever Yes, but this b*ll*cks about having intelligence about one of our Trident subs patrolling down there as some sort of military escallation was so ridiculous the Yanks must have started questioning her sanity. OK, so the Falklands would be a nice safe haven away from the normal shipping lanes to station such a sub, and the missiles have the range to hit their predesignated targets, but it is also very difficult for us to defend the sub if we found out that Russians have managed to get a track on her. I expect them to be located in the North Atlantic with the US and UK on either side and the GIUK gap monitored for Russian activity, or maybe in the North Seas around the Shetlands and Orkneys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 17 April, 2012 Share Posted 17 April, 2012 I expect them to be located in the North Atlantic with the US and UK on either side and the GIUK gap monitored for Russian activity, or maybe in the North Seas around the Shetlands and Orkneys I'm sure the missiles can hit pretty much anywhere in the world...... the 'gaps" are very busy lanes......so I can't see patrolling there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 17 April, 2012 Share Posted 17 April, 2012 Nice one Obama, you just keep showing the world how great the Yanks have always been at Geography Very clever diplomatic move when you know you will **** off somebody you need to keep friendly if you call them the 'Falklands' or the 'Malvinas'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 17 April, 2012 Share Posted 17 April, 2012 I'm sure the missiles can hit pretty much anywhere in the world...... the 'gaps" are very busy lanes......so I can't see patrolling there I didnt mean patrolling in the gaps, I meant that monitoring the gaps makes defending the sub easier if it is in the N. Atlantic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 17 April, 2012 Share Posted 17 April, 2012 I didnt mean patrolling in the gaps, I meant that monitoring the gaps makes defending the sub easier if it is in the N. Atlantic. defend what..? my advice, just agree to disagree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 17 April, 2012 Share Posted 17 April, 2012 defend what..? my advice, just agree to disagree Erm, no I dont think I will. It is clearly easier to chase off a Russian sub with a track on a US or UK missile sub in the N. Atlantic because the resources are in place to do so, and thanks to the SOSUS element of the IUSS, we know when a Russian sub enters the N. Atlantic. You might think you know it all about submarining, but for all we know you bake the bread in the galley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimond Geezer Posted 17 April, 2012 Share Posted 17 April, 2012 You might think you know it all about submarining, but for all we know you bake the bread in the galley. If he were to tell, he'd have to kill you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 17 April, 2012 Share Posted 17 April, 2012 You might think you know it all about submarining, but for all we know you bake the bread in the galley. Were you the ballast? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 17 April, 2012 Share Posted 17 April, 2012 Erm, no I dont think I will. It is clearly easier to chase off a Russian sub with a track on a US or UK missile sub in the N. Atlantic because the resources are in place to do so, and thanks to the SOSUS element of the IUSS, we know when a Russian sub enters the N. Atlantic. You might think you know it all about submarining, but for all we know you bake the bread in the galley. actually alpine...I have forgotten more than you will ever know and no, I don't bake bread ffs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 17 April, 2012 Share Posted 17 April, 2012 actually alpine...I have forgotten more than you will ever know and no, I don't bake bread ffs Do you work the periscope? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 17 April, 2012 Share Posted 17 April, 2012 Do you work the periscope? no, i look for the golden rivet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 17 April, 2012 Share Posted 17 April, 2012 actually alpine...I have forgotten more than you will ever know Of course you have, Captain Pugwash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 1 May, 2012 Share Posted 1 May, 2012 It would seem that the Falkland Islanders should not enjoy the same Human Rights as other free people - well according to the Argentine Ambassador to the Court of St James anyway: http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=19623 I can only suggest that His Excellency goes and takes a long walk off a very short pier ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 1 May, 2012 Share Posted 1 May, 2012 no, i look for the golden rivet You've been ****ged by the ship's cook? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 2 May, 2012 Share Posted 2 May, 2012 It would seem that the Falkland Islanders should not enjoy the same Human Rights as other free people - well according to the Argentine Ambassador to the Court of St James anyway: http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=19623 I can only suggest that His Excellency goes and takes a long walk off a very short pier ..... Her Excellency Alicia Castro has just been appointed after there being no permanent Argentinan amabssador to the UK for about 4 years. It appears from her activity so far that her one sole remit from that ***** Kirchner is to make scenes at diplomatic functions chaired by representatives of the UK govenrment in London; to challenge Britains refusal to negotiate and to repeat the lie of the UK throwing out a settled Argentinian population in 1833, in the most inappropriate forums possible. Apparently there was a human rights seminar with William Hague and he asked from questions from the audience, and she started making a speech about the Falklands and had to be stopped after being told 3 times to get on with her question. She had not only the nerve to challenge the UKs committment to human rights, but almost in the same breath to say that the human right of self-determination did not apply to the Falkand Islanders. Breathtaking double-standards. Sadly, she managed to fluster and embarrass that political pigmy from a government full of political pygmies.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alehouseboys Posted 3 May, 2012 Share Posted 3 May, 2012 Stirring it up a little... http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16221299 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts